Libraries have been automating their procedures for decades. And yet we are still far from maximizing the benefits of automation in our internal procedures.
We do not have one method or mechanism for acquiring materials. We still have different ways of "marking and parking" — some of which are disturbingly manual and time-intensive. Although we share cataloging records, too many of our libraries believe themselves to be unique enough to justify adding additional headings, or changing the classification, or other expensive record adjustments that may or may not be justified by their impact on user experience.
These and more are all inefficiencies that must be squeezed out of our systems. Because if they are not, we will never have the resources to focus on things that really matter.
We can begin to address this on several fronts — individually, organizationally, and cooperatively.
Individually, we can think critically about everything we do on a regular basis. Whenever you find yourself doing the same kind of thing repeatedly, think critically about it. Can it be done differently, or not at all? Is there a way outsource it (for example, buying shelf-ready books), or streamline it, or do it more efficiently? In particular, can you think of ways that you could collaborate with other libraries in your area or beyond (see below) to create efficiencies?
Organizationally, we can look together at the activities we spend our time doing and investigate other ways of getting those things done, or even determine whether they need to be done at all. Clearly this calls for imaginative and critical thinking at an organizational scale, which is admittedly challenging.
Cooperatively we can discuss where inefficiencies are found within our organizations and work together to create more efficient workflows, standards, and procedures.
So I’m sorry to be the one to tell you this, but you’re less special than you think. We are all doing many of the same things, mostly in our own idiosyncratic ways, and we need to stop it. We need to become much more efficient than we are today — both individually and collectively so we can better meet our goals and fulfill our missions. It’s time to get over our uniqueness and start getting seriously in tune with our sameness.
About Roy Tennant
I think this is one of the most simplistic blog posts I have ever read. I am no enemy to outsourcing and automation, but, on the other hand, I am an enemy to the sameness and mediocrity Mr. Tennant’s anti-intellectualism would create. Yes, maybe we do not need 10,000 different classifications for the same book, but we do need more than one. And, unless he knows each of us personally and each of our library systems personally, who is he to say we are less special than we think.
Some catalog record editing is to serve local users better, whether it is adding a collection name, additional subject headings, or a different call number. Another problem is the high number of poor records in the OCLC database. I frequently see minimal records that already have 10-20 holdings. Obviously, no one is contributing to the master record. I try to enhance records whenever I can, but there are plenty of UKM and DLC records that I could improve, but I’m not “authorized.” OCLC needs to make it easier to make corrections in the database, and start eliminating duplicate records if they are going to suggest that everyone just use WorldCat.